Jafrudin Malik vs State Of Odisha

Savitri Ratho, J

This is the second application of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Excise, Rayagada Range P.R. Case No.59 of 2023-24 corresponding to T.R. Case No.32 of 2023, where the petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Rayagada for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The earlier application BLAPL No. 310 of 2024 filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by me on 18.01.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail afresh in case there is undue delay in commencement/completion of trial.

Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the learned Court below for bail, but his prayer has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Rayagada on 29.02.2024.

The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 12.07.2023 the petitioner was arrested at Rayagada Railway Station along with two bags each bag containing 25 kgs. of ganja. As he could not produce any license or authority for possessing the ganja, he was arrested and the ganja was seized.

Mr. Himanshu Bhusan Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young man aged about 22 years and is in custody since 12.07.2023. He further submits that he has no criminal antecedent and the allegation that he was standing in the railway station holding two bags containing 25 kgs. of ganja is improbable as it is difficult for one person to carry two bags weighing 50 kgs. He further submits that the trial has started in the case and P.W. 2 who was the RPF constable who was a witness to the seizure has stated that he cannot identify the petitioner since the occurrence has taken place six to seven months back. He further submits that only the I.O. in the case remains to be examined for which his prayer for bail may be sympathetically considered.

Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating that the earlier bail application had been dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail afresh in case there is undue delay in commencement/ completion of trial and as two out of three witnesses have already been examined and the case is pending for examination of the I.O., the petitioner should not deserve to be granted bail, in view of the fact that 50 kgs. of ganja has been recovered from him which attracts rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The fact that two witnesses have already been examined in the case and the case is posted to 24.05.2024 for examination of the I.O., I am therefore not satisfied that there has been undue delay in completion of the trial for which I am not inclined to entertain the prayer for bail. The BLAPL is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail before the learned trial Court for bail afresh in case the trial is not concluded by 10th July, 2024.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Special Judge, Rayagada.

…………………………..